David Lammy/Stacey Dooley

Forget Children in Need what are posters and Lammy saying in their posts.? White should look after White, Black should look after Black and there is no room for integration, looking after others
Are you really unable to see ANY middle ground between gratuitous saviourism, and not helping at all? Its not one or the other. There are other, better ways of achieving things if we learn from the past and move with the times

without seeing the colour of their skin. peoples heritage matters. Their experiences matters. It is a statement that demonstrates extreme privilidge to think that ones race/heritage/other differences just dont and shouldnt matter or be given any contextual consideration.

If you havent experienced why it DOES AND SHOULD matter. You are lucky.

It was considered progressive in the 80s/90s to promote the "dont see colour" idea. Since then there has been many many writings and academic discussions about why that sentiment is flawed. If you are at all interested there are many many texts out there explaining why.

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/201602/i-dont-see-color

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_8401552?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_cs=CaE31VwvY7490p2o8J02Yw

There are a gazillion more. If you type "I dont see colour statement" into google you will get tonnes of results and they are not in support of the statement

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_8401552?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_cs=CaE31VwvY7490p2o8J02Yw

Sorry I have no idea why this link keeps not working, if this doesnt work I give up, do your own googling www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-holland-lorenzo/i-dont-see-color_b_8401552.html

White saviour way:
" WE'RE here to bring fresh water to these adorable villagers who wouldnt have anything without our help. Look how cute and grateful they are! Aww Lets do a pan shot of cute brown kiddies"

Respectful way:
"We are here to hear what the people of this villages have to say about the challenges they face to get fresh water, how they are working towards improving things, and asking them what we can do to help. Cuts to articulate adult villager to hear what they have to say"

See. Middle ground. Not too hard is it?

Exactly notanan

Not hard at all, notanan. Well said.

POGS Words fail me for once I agree, it is how something is interpreted that is key.
And lily65
If people cannot help others in need that is a sad day for the world. If someone is a different race, colour, creed should we not reach out to them whatever?

I hope that one day these charities will not be needed but that will not be something that will happen in the forseeable future. Without this aid people will die. With this aid children will live and be educated and there will be a hope for a better future.

Terribull a very reasoned and sensible post.

notanan yes, but it's what someone picks up on - I was moved by the short film of the African nurse funded by this charity doing her rounds of her patients. I hadn't even seen the picture of Stacey.

I have argued that Stacey is in fact in the former category not the latter and I would believe that that pic was an out of context snap shot of her having respectful meaningful interactions. But. I agree with the wider issues which are being lost by focusing on David V Stacey.

Noone has said stop giving to charity, can we please put that one to bed. We are saying that there are respectful and disrespectful ways to fund raise and there really is no excuse these days for the disrespectful kind. It is not the only way.

We can no longer claim the innocence/nativity/good intentions that can be applied to the use of this format in the "feed the world" days.

Of course people can help each other. But it can never be acceptable to insinuate that the inhabitants of a whole continent are lazy or fail to care for each other.

*Why certain countries, such as those in the continent of Africa, need to be taught how to look after and work together with their fellow countrymen and women, heaven knows.
Surely it's an inherent trait that even animals have.
If they need teaching the basics, there is no hope*

How can this be interpreted?

Lily 65

Reporting posts to GNHQ is bad enough in my opinion but threatening a poster as you did earlier tells me to be more than a tad wary when you engage in a thread.

I have never known a poster to say this to another no matter how volatile an agreement between them:-

" That is absolutely vile and has been passed on to the relevant authorities. It is classifies as hate crime."

In short, the Stacey pic is IMO a bad example of what is a real issue. I think DL has done the opposite of raising awareness of the issue by singling her out. It's a shame all round.

I CAN see why at first glance the pic is reminiscent of so many "cuddle-a-orphan" pic on social media, and it causes real and lasting damage to the children used this way. But I do doubt that the story behind THIS pic was the same as the similar but problematic ones

David Lammy's attack was impulsive and immotive and Stacey Dooleys response was impulsive and emotive/defensive.

No constructive dialogue from either side.

Stacey would have been wiser to take a breath. Not reply on the attack/defensive, and acknowledge that the pic IS reminiscent of a problematic phenomonon, and then go on to explore what she already does (and maybe could do better) to try to be a contributer to solutions not problems.

Problem is that social media is so "instant" and people (on both sides in this case IMO) don't let the dust settle so they can see clearly before bashing out a post and hitting "send"

Or bashing out a hundred?

I'm not sure why Stacey is trying to justify herself or why we are discussing it.

IMO Lenny Henry summed up David Lammy's attitude very succinctly.
Well done Sir Lenny Henry.

QED

294 [5]

We are discussing it because people do not necessarily have the same opinion as you Jalima.

Lenny Henry, as co-founder of Comic Relief, is unlikely to support David Lammy's views on this as Henry is, I think most people would say, the face of Comic Relief.

In my view Lammy could have presented his case in a more diplomatic and effective way but I don't think that invalidates the very good points that he made. However, I am disappointed that Henry and Dooley have reacted equally impetuously, and I would say childishly, instead of maybe meeting up with Lammy to discuss, the issues he raised.

Exactly ,,,they reacted. It wasn’t they who created the bad feeling in the first place. Saying DL could have ‘presented his case in a more diplomatic’ way is putting it mildly. He was rude and racist IMO.

To say that some black people have
"chips on their shoulders" implies a huge lack of appreciation of how insidious racism is. It also implies that one thinks the person is making an undue fuss & should ' get over it' .
People react to negative and painful situations differently, whatever their skin colour. Some who have been on the recieving end of racism will respond differently to others.
You only have to read the relationship threads on here to see how different we all are.

I said Lammy has a chip on his shoulder not all black people.

Plenty of white people have chips on their shoulders as well me included over some issues it's human nature.

That is still , imo, showing a lack of appreciation for his expeience. I don't think he does " have a chip on his shoulder." He might have shown a lack of good timing to pick his battles..